Invading Iraq was not just a disaster: it was illegal - Johan Steyn
/.../
Mr Brown initially tried to arrange a secret inquiry on the spurious grounds that it would ensure the evidence of serving and former ministers would be “as full and candid as possible”. The prime minister’s attempt was blocked by public opposition. He also failed to the extent that he tried to prevent any criticism by the inquiry of the cabinet. The prime minister’s wishes prevailed in part, with evidence not being given on oath. The public will draw its own inference as to why those who committed us to the Iraq war wish to avoid giving evidence under oath. The importance of this point is heightened by the fact that at the inquiry there will be no cross-examination of witnesses.
Contrary to the even-handed procedure adopted between political parties in respect of appointments in the Falklands inquiry, the prime minister picked the members of the Iraq inquiry. I have no doubt all five members are persons of independence, competence and integrity. But the method of selection was not calculated to inspire public confidence.
Mr Brown chose not to appoint any military figure to serve as a member on the Iraq inquiry. Given that the overwhelming thrust of the evidence concerns military matters, that is odd. Our country greatly respects military men and women. With due respect I would say that the public has greater faith in the independence of military personnel than in judges, civil servants or politicians.
Bearing in mind the critical question of the legality of the invasion, the fact that no lawyer of standing was appointed to serve as a member of the inquiry is surprising. Or perhaps it is not surprising, given that lawyers are paid to probe. For the inquiry to consult a lawyer is hardly the same...
Britansko ucesce u bezbrojnim krvavim dogadjajima
u svetskoj istoriji, pre svega "zakulisno",
poznato je. Dovoljni su britanski istoricari i
njihovo pisanje o Britanskoj imperiji, da se shvate
metode, shvatanja i beskrupuloznost delovanaja.
Spijunaza i propaganda, pa akcije-tajne ili otvo-
rene, su davno dobro razradjen sistem.
Mnogi misle da britanske razne "inteligence" sluzbe
(kao i upravljaci finansija) ustvari "vladaju"
americkim (gde su CIA, NSA, ... samo vidljivi).
Na prostorima kraljeine Jugoslavije Britanci su
bili visestruko prisutni, iako ono nikad nije
integralno ocenjeno.
Govorimo samo o "27-mo martovskom" pucu, ali ne
i prisustvu, vezama, ..., pre svega javnim, malo.
Sa "nekom" idejom, ne pise se o prisustvu britanske
misije u partizanskom Glavnom stabu, ...,"slavnom"
raskidu, cuvenom ostrvu i odavno zabasurenom go-
voru pred britanskom kraljicom, ...
Zabasurujuci sve to, ni da "zucnemo" o tuzbi
zbog bombardvanja, a jos manje o delovanju SAS-a,
tokom celog gradjanskog rata na tlu Jugoslavije,
"krunisanog" ubijanja Albanaca (i Srba) pod uni-
formama "Slobine" policije (da, nisu bili sami-
bili su tu i "nasi" iz BiH, ali i pravi, a nasi,
pomalo i extra placeni).
Kao sto su nam "u kuci" bili u XX veku, krojili
nam istoriju i istorijske licnosti, zasto bi nas
sad, naprasno, ostavili?
Onima, koji ce reci-"opet teorija zavere!", neka
prvo poredjaju cinjenice, razmisle da li se sve
u svetu desava spontano, svom odnosu prema celoj
"prici" (a bilo je i reci i slike) o Iraku, koja
se jos odvija na nase oci.
Kako Britanci istrazuju, nije ni cudo ni posebno.
To sto Srbija cuti i time "jatakuje" sa zlocincima
(bili oni pripadnici javnih ili tajnih formacija
Njenog Velicanstva), najmanje je - tuzno.
S postovanjem,
S. Savic
Preporuke:
0
0
3
sreda, 09 decembar 2009 09:26
simonida
tamo gde je SILA, gola sila, leži nepravda a gde leži nepravda tamo su i laži,prevare,obmannjivanja...mi smo pametan narod koji vidi i koji strada ali i veruje u kosmičku pravdu, u onu višu koja će kazniti zločinca,možda ne danas, možda ne sutra ali KAZNA ih čeka i taj sudnji dan im je sve bliži...
Preporuke:
0
0
4
sreda, 09 decembar 2009 11:19
Jasna Simonović
SIMONIDA...Cherchez la Femme! - rekli bi "starosedeoci planete"...
Da li je to i danas tako, ja ne znam...ali svakako znam da ste u pravu da svako zlo treba da se okaje, a da bi se okajalo, mora da se prvo spozna... i to u "biti"!
Preporuke:
0
0
5
sreda, 09 decembar 2009 15:02
Dag
Posipanje pepelom da bi se ista igra mogla nastaviti. DŽordž Buš nije bio dobar, a Toni Bler je bio nevaljalac. Uvek je pogrešio onaj prethodni što je najobičnije pilatovsko pranje ruku.
Moguće je da predsednik ili premijer nešto nije znao, to uključuje i cilj rata, ali obaveštajne službe su znale i znaju. Ako obaveštajne službe mogu da dezinformišu sopstvenu državu, pitanje je u čijim su one rukama.
Demokratska javnost je tu samo naivna publika beskrajne medijske predstave koja treba da sakrije svaku suštinu.
.jpg)
/.../
Mr Brown initially tried to arrange a secret inquiry on the spurious grounds that it would ensure the evidence of serving and former ministers would be “as full and candid as possible”. The prime minister’s attempt was blocked by public opposition. He also failed to the extent that he tried to prevent any criticism by the inquiry of the cabinet. The prime minister’s wishes prevailed in part, with evidence not being given on oath. The public will draw its own inference as to why those who committed us to the Iraq war wish to avoid giving evidence under oath. The importance of this point is heightened by the fact that at the inquiry there will be no cross-examination of witnesses.
Contrary to the even-handed procedure adopted between political parties in respect of appointments in the Falklands inquiry, the prime minister picked the members of the Iraq inquiry. I have no doubt all five members are persons of independence, competence and integrity. But the method of selection was not calculated to inspire public confidence.
Mr Brown chose not to appoint any military figure to serve as a member on the Iraq inquiry. Given that the overwhelming thrust of the evidence concerns military matters, that is odd. Our country greatly respects military men and women. With due respect I would say that the public has greater faith in the independence of military personnel than in judges, civil servants or politicians.
Bearing in mind the critical question of the legality of the invasion, the fact that no lawyer of standing was appointed to serve as a member of the inquiry is surprising. Or perhaps it is not surprising, given that lawyers are paid to probe. For the inquiry to consult a lawyer is hardly the same...
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/821ee3f4-dde6-11de-b8e2-00144feabdc0.html
u svetskoj istoriji, pre svega "zakulisno",
poznato je. Dovoljni su britanski istoricari i
njihovo pisanje o Britanskoj imperiji, da se shvate
metode, shvatanja i beskrupuloznost delovanaja.
Spijunaza i propaganda, pa akcije-tajne ili otvo-
rene, su davno dobro razradjen sistem.
Mnogi misle da britanske razne "inteligence" sluzbe
(kao i upravljaci finansija) ustvari "vladaju"
americkim (gde su CIA, NSA, ... samo vidljivi).
Na prostorima kraljeine Jugoslavije Britanci su
bili visestruko prisutni, iako ono nikad nije
integralno ocenjeno.
Govorimo samo o "27-mo martovskom" pucu, ali ne
i prisustvu, vezama, ..., pre svega javnim, malo.
Sa "nekom" idejom, ne pise se o prisustvu britanske
misije u partizanskom Glavnom stabu, ...,"slavnom"
raskidu, cuvenom ostrvu i odavno zabasurenom go-
voru pred britanskom kraljicom, ...
Zabasurujuci sve to, ni da "zucnemo" o tuzbi
zbog bombardvanja, a jos manje o delovanju SAS-a,
tokom celog gradjanskog rata na tlu Jugoslavije,
"krunisanog" ubijanja Albanaca (i Srba) pod uni-
formama "Slobine" policije (da, nisu bili sami-
bili su tu i "nasi" iz BiH, ali i pravi, a nasi,
pomalo i extra placeni).
Kao sto su nam "u kuci" bili u XX veku, krojili
nam istoriju i istorijske licnosti, zasto bi nas
sad, naprasno, ostavili?
Onima, koji ce reci-"opet teorija zavere!", neka
prvo poredjaju cinjenice, razmisle da li se sve
u svetu desava spontano, svom odnosu prema celoj
"prici" (a bilo je i reci i slike) o Iraku, koja
se jos odvija na nase oci.
Kako Britanci istrazuju, nije ni cudo ni posebno.
To sto Srbija cuti i time "jatakuje" sa zlocincima
(bili oni pripadnici javnih ili tajnih formacija
Njenog Velicanstva), najmanje je - tuzno.
S postovanjem,
S. Savic
Da li je to i danas tako, ja ne znam...ali svakako znam da ste u pravu da svako zlo treba da se okaje, a da bi se okajalo, mora da se prvo spozna... i to u "biti"!
Moguće je da predsednik ili premijer nešto nije znao, to uključuje i cilj rata, ali obaveštajne službe su znale i znaju. Ako obaveštajne službe mogu da dezinformišu sopstvenu državu, pitanje je u čijim su one rukama.
Demokratska javnost je tu samo naivna publika beskrajne medijske predstave koja treba da sakrije svaku suštinu.